Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: unsettled on 22 Jan 2007 11:31 T Wake wrote: > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message > news:eontsk$8qk_002(a)s887.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > > <snip> > >>And this enemy does not recognize your law. They consider >>your law illegal. So they will never obey it and are actively >>trying to destroy its infrastructure. > > > This is funny. Do you feel "normal" criminals recognise the law and respect > it? I would say yes, they do, since most "normal" criminals, as opposed to the clearly insane ones, work hard not to get caught. "This enemy" as BAH puts it, does not recognize (meaning actually acceptance of validity) of your laws. Our western criminals see an opportunity and they think they can avoid the consequences. But that clearly is not the same thing as refusing to recognize the laws.
From: T Wake on 22 Jan 2007 11:37 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eonoik$8ss_001(a)s887.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <ifvnq25pdonj1eq57u1q2u9qm3apfqkmec(a)4ax.com>, > Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote: <snip> >>Aside from that, what exact legal loop hole are you discussing? Or is >>this just some broad hand-sweep without any facts? Who is being let >>go, what is the exact reason, and why do you disagree with it? > > I cannot remember details. Italy had to let some terrorists go because > they said there wasn't any Italian law that allowed Italy to > keep them in jail. Interesting and I dont recal any particular event which this could be. When you say Italy let terrorists go, what country had already found the people guilty of terrorism? It is a shame you can not remember the details, because it would be interesting to see how convicted terrorists escaped Italian law - they tend to have quite good anti-terror and anti-organised crime legislation now.(Albeit with a few spectacular mistakes!) <snip>
From: T Wake on 22 Jan 2007 11:41 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eot6mm$8qk_012(a)s768.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <45B21B8E.CEB3FB52(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote: >>> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> > >>> >>France didn't act until the field tests of urban riots happened. >>> > >>> >I vaguely recollect something here, but again need details. >>> >>> This was last summer. France had urban riots and seemed to >>> be out of their Muslim workers. But the only people who seemed >>> to be making messes were the kids. >> >>They're the ones most pissed off because they can't get jobs or maybe only > menial >>ones. > > Instead of voting or using other legal means, this culture riots > and makes messes to get the attention of their government. Which culture? The French? Or do you mean "Muslims?" If so, while what you say may well be true (Muslims riot to get attention), it is disingenious in that it implies other cultures dont. This is certainly not true. If you honestly believe that Muslims riot and "westerners" dont, then I suggest you revist your recent history books. > A large part of the Muslim mindset change has to do with how > they communicate with their rulers. This is probably the most > important change that needs to happen. One of the previous complaints you had about Muslims went along the lines of them being to slavish to a central ruler and too ready to obey authority. Is this meant to imply the opposite now? >> >>It's what they call 'social exclusion' and it probably does have some > parallels >>with the African Americans in the 60s. > > There are some. You should be more disturbed that the European > union mentality isn't doing the work and you have to import > your laborers. All "western civilisations" import labour. In the EU most of it is imported from other EU countries.
From: T Wake on 22 Jan 2007 11:46 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eot6fb$8qk_011(a)s768.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <eot3p3$8qk_001(a)s768.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>In article <825vq21dvqu6lrc1e1copqmj63j3nn34t7(a)4ax.com>, >> Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote: > <snip> > >>>>Spain seems to be slow to respond even after the trains were >>>>blown up. >>> >>>I remember some of this. What do you mean here by "slow to respond?" >> >>Spain has just started to recover, politically and economically, >>from the mess stirred by the Nazis. They have to take great >>care when investigating the messes just in case the mess was >>made by their home-grown terrorists [or whatever they call them]. >> >>>By this question, I mean both 'slow' and also what you feel was >>>inadequate about the response. >> >>Not inadequate, AFAIK, but slow because they had to tread lightly >>to avoid another internal civil fight. > > I just remembered that the reason I started watching Spain is > because they were the first European country to submit to > Islamic extremists' blackmail and promised to withdraw their > troops after the train bombing. While it is certainly probable that the bombing provided the main reason for the outcome of the Spanish elections, it is interesting that you seem to have read the situation in this manner. Prior to the bombings, the majority of the Spanish people were in favour of withdrawing the troops. It was not a policy put in place as a result of the bombings. Your wording here implies that Islamic extremists provided the Spanish government with two options and bombed the train to show willing. In reality, Spain is a democratic country (with all that entails) and the will of the people prevailed. > I do not know the status of this one. I think everyone else does.
From: T Wake on 22 Jan 2007 12:35
"unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:20b30$45afa229$4fe7416$11822(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... > Ken Smith wrote: <snip> >> Accepting the suggestion for the purposes of argument: If there are >> jails in the US that are worse than Gitmo, the US needs to be ashamed of >> those and not proud of Gitmo. > > The baseline is simple. Is Gitmo treatment acceptable or isn't > it. If jails and prisons in the US are unacceptable by our > standards you better believe that the ACLU and others would > immediately take action and bring lawsuits. > > I haven't heard of any lately, have you? > >> Since access to Gitmo has been tightly controled neither you nor those >> prisoners you speak of have any real idea of what goes on there. From >> the FBI's own documents, you can get an idea of what was observed by the >> FBI agents when they were there: > >> http://foia.fbi.gov/guantanamo/detainees.pdf > >> You will notice that they saw some moderately bad stuff happening and >> documented it. You will also notice the careful "but it wasn't us" that >> was in their statements. > >> There is: >> http://hrw.org/backgrounder/usa/gitmo1004/9.htm#_Toc86553361 > >> but they are not impartial on the subject. > > I have too much going on at the moment to download these today. > I won't forget them though. > To save some time: (From FBI report) "As requested, here is a brief summary of what I observed at GTMO: On a couple of occasions I entered interview rooms to find a detainee chained hand and foot in a fetal position to the floor, with no chair, food or water. Most times they had urinated or defecated on themselves, and had been left there for 18, 24 hours or more. On one occasion, the air conditioning had been turned down so far and the temperature was so cold in the room, that the barefooted detainee was shaking with cold. When I asked the MPs what was going on, I was told the interrogators from the day prior had ordered this treatment, and the detainee was not to be moved. On another occasion the A/C had been turned off, making the temperature in the unventilated room probably well over 100 degrees. The detainee was almost unconscious on the floor, with a pile of hair next to him. He had apparently been literally pulling his own hair out throughout the night. On another occasion, not only was the temperature unbearably hot, but extremely loud rap music was being played in the room, and had been since the day before, with the detainee chained hand and foot in the fetal position on the tile floor." (page 15) "I am responding to your request for feedback on aggressive treatment and improper interview techniques used on detainees at GTMO. I did observe treatment that was not only aggressive, but personally very upsetting, although I can't say that this treatment was perpetrated by Bureau employees. It seemed that these techniques were being employed by the military." (page 15) There is more, and there are some bits saying they never encountered any aggressive treatment of detainees (eg, page 20). As I say each time, I have no idea what the US considered "legal" treatment of some one who has been "detained" and not charged with any crime, but in the UK the above treatment is certainly illegal. A police force or prison system which treated _convicted_ criminals in the above manner would be prosecuted, let alone people detained for questioning. I know Ken describes the report as saying "moderately bad stuff" happened, but the above accounts (chained in the foetal position for example) are beyond *my* use of the term moderate bad stuff. |